If you have a different opinion then you tell me why they have the same plastic furniture - the same walls - the same floorboard color - and the same orange jump suit. You tell me why these terrorists are fat white guys wearing bullet proof vests. You tell me why they speak bad Arabic. You tell me why they yell like Americans when they kill Berg. I suppose the terrorist picked up those chairs at the local WalMart!

Berg has no idea what it about to happen. He looks comfortable - perhaps too comfortable. I think they probably told him that they wanted him to pretend to be a hostage in order to get out of prison. Berg knew he was back at Abu Ghraib prison and that his "captors" were Americans - and that he was playing a role. Notice the orange prison garb in the picture.

Furthermore - for those of you who haven't made the leap to the conclusion I came to - that Americans dressed as terrorists did it - you at least have to admit that serious questions are raised that need to be answered. And I'm hoping you all will help me get the questions asked.

# No Blood - I only watched it once but it was a blur to me. There may be a reason that there is blood (has to be blood) but we don't see it. The reality is - Berg really is dead - and his head really was cut off. So - whatever doesn't make sense about the blood is just generally confusing.

# The Gold Ring I'm told this is against Islamic law. And - that contributes to the argument. I personally don't find it persuasive by itself, but it contributes a little.

# The Tape was Edited - Yes - there are wo time lines on the tape. What does that mean? Does it mean it was faked? Again - Nick Berg is really dead. So - I believe he was actually killed by the guys on the tape. But - what it does indicate is that the terrorists have what seems to be two cameras and digitial video editing equipment. Other tapes from bin Laden are not as high tech. Generally a physical copy is delivered to a TV station rather than a two camera production that is digitally edited and uploaded to a web site.

# Why cover his face and then give his name? - Yes - this is a good point. That is what you would do if you weren't who you say you are. And it's one of those add on reasons that supports my conclusion.

# Political Timing and Motives - I've avoided this because I don't want to get distracted by a political debate. That debate is there - but I'm trying to focus on the facts that are not in dispute. I draw my information from the published pictures. Motive do need to be considered - but I'm not going there in this article.

# The CIA couldn't be that stupid - Yes - they can. This murder looks like the kind of short term bad thinking that the Bush administration is known for. The prison sex abuse pics we are seeing shows that - yes - they really can be that stupid.

# Orange Prison Garb - This is what I consider the strongest red flag that he was at the prison. Americans put prosiners in orange so that if they escape they are easier to spot. The last thing a kidnapper is going to do is put a hostage in orange. Orange is what you put on people who you want to attract attention to.

There is someting weird about Nick Berg, yes. Is this a CIA/MOSSAD conspiracy? Hardly anything points at that at this point except ramblings and fallacies from conspiracy sites. Things like "omg, a plastic chair " or "an orange jumpsuit!!!!".

We are worried about terrorists getting weapons grade uranium,but they can't get an orange jumpsuit for a political statement????

If it were a CIA conspiracy do you really think they would be stupid enough to have him dressed in a prison uniform?

I don't subscribe to this Berg/CIA conspiracy theory. However, I would stop short at defending the stupidity level of the US government's actions in recent years.

The first rule of thumb about committing crimes: don't videotape yourself doing or saying something incriminating. You'd think they would have learned that from watching "America's Dumbest Criminals"...

But some soldiers beat up some Iraqis,so that means the CIA is stupid!!!!!

GRQC said:

The first rule of thumb about committing crimes: don't videotape yourself doing or saying something incriminating.

Not that I agree with all of the tactics used in the prison, but videotaping/photographing is a standard interrogation technique. If you humiliate and put a person you're trying to interrogate under stress, they will eventually crack. If you have evidence of what you've done, it can be used to influence other prisoners. If the person being interrogated knows what will be coming if they don't talk, and they know that it wont stop until they do based on what they've seen happen to others, it'll make them falter quicker.

Again, I don't agree with all of the tactics used, but the people who are in unholy uproar over the photos are the same people who are complaining that we had awful intelligence prior to 9-11. Getting information from people who want to hurt you about how they're planning on hurting you is ugly business. You can't just go up to a militant and nicely ask where they're planning on blowing up the next car bomb. It takes "coersion", plain and simple.

Again, I don't agree with all of the tactics used, but the people who are in unholy uproar over the photos are the same people who are complaining that we had awful intelligence prior to 9-11. Getting information from people who want to hurt you about how they're planning on hurting you is ugly business.

Not to digress from the topic at hand, but you must remember (a) these interrogation "techniques" are banned by rules of engagement which the US is claiming to be upholding, and moreover (b) most of these people are not trying to hurt anyone. The Wall Street Journal reported that between 70-90% of those being held were arrested by mistake. Not a good way to treat the innocent, from whom you're seeking sympathy.

I'm not debating that things were done wrong. That's what happens when you've got reservists doing the interrogating...

The lines are murky. There is quite a bit you can't do. Torture for instance. There are still many things you can do. I'm not certain on it, but I'm pretty sure you can do things like humiliate them, disrupt their sleep cycles, etc.

Note that the pictures of torture by the british troops were forgeries.

That doesn't explain why they're so adamandtly refusing to say who gave the order. If anything, it's a strike against them getting orders.

Not a single one wants to have their punishment reduced in exchange for talking? I'm hesitant to believe them...

You're assuming an offer has been made to reduce their sentence in return for cooperation. I am not aware that the offer has been made. The soldier who anonymously submitted the photographic evidence is being court martialed with the rest. Cooperation is punished, so far.

Could this be a psyop operation? I don't thinkit is that way off base. If I remember correctly the CIA has a history of killing American innocent civilians. I remember the Michael Devine case when I had just entered the working world after college. In 1990, The CIA had commisioned an agent in Guatamala who was responsible for the 1990 torture and brutal slaying of Michael Devine, an American innkeeper (his head was nearly sawed off by a machete) and for the 1992 torture and murder of the husband of Jennifer Harbury, an American citizen.

Representative Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, who disclosed these facts, said "the agency is simply out of control and contains what can only be called a criminal element." But this was not the work of one overzealous agent or one rogue operation. This was, and is, standard operating procedure. In El Salvador and Guatemala and elsewhere around the globe, the "criminal element" is the CIA itself. The CIA organized the death squads in these countries, financed them, equipped them, trained them, and consulted with them on individual cases of torture and assassination. These are the facts. That's what the CIA does. The CIA knows it. The Pentagon knows it. The State Department knows it. The President knows it. Congress knows it. And no one does anything about it.

http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/news/notisur/h95/notisur.19950331.html [Broken]

Normally, I am not a conspirationalist type of person but it's not like the CIA has a sterling reputation. However, as everyone pointed out, they sure were sloppy to leave all those clues.

The lines are murky. There is quite a bit you can't do. Torture for instance. There are still many things you can do. I'm not certain on it, but I'm pretty sure you can do things like humiliate them, disrupt their sleep cycles, etc.

Have the interrogators ever looked toward an "supreme annoyance" policy? As in find a person with the most scratchiest, high pitched, and generally the abosolutely most annoying worst dialect ever imaginable that someone can ever possibly speak, and have them repeat things to the prisoner until they are driven mad.

Have the interrogators ever looked toward an "supreme annoyance" policy? As in find a person with the most scratchiest, high pitched, and generally the abosolutely most annoying worst dialect ever imaginable that someone can ever possibly speak, and have them repeat things to the prisoner until they are driven mad.

Indeed, that what they do also in Guantanomo ... a lot of rap with plenty of ****-words.

Added: hé ... I typed the real letters ... and it was converted to those high quality stars.

Don't forget that the words "Now are we done" seem to be said at the end of the tape while Berg's head is being displayed.

I don't think you need a conspiracy theory for this one- the only evidence linking the tape to Mousawi are the titles, which could have been manufactured by literally anyone who had access to the tape before it was webcast. Also, there's a logical inconsistency with Mousawi proclaiming his identity in the titles but hiding it while committing the act. Not to mention that Mousawi was reported as having lost a leg in 2001 and killed in 2003. There are at least 3 edits or splices when the time signature jumps about 11 hours, and dozens of other circimstantial things that are suggestive to say the least. The CIA claims to have done analysis of some type on the voice of the killer, but will not present this evidence. If waveform analysis has been done, it should be public.

One thing is clear- I;ve found absolutely no proof that the official story is true.

one this is ridiculus to say that the CIA is behind the death of Nick Berg. Also it is just plain dumb to say that the interrogations were conducted improperly because they were conducted by reservists. Reservists recieve the same military training that active duty military recieve. So they conduct interrogations in the same manner. Just because there are a select few who find it funny to abuse prisoners does not reflect on the rest of the military and how they run things. But back to Nick Berg, the CIA would not stage something like that and make obvious mistakes like the ones you are trying to point out. There have been many CIA cover ups that have been revealed in some manner but they all were good and usually took an inside source to expose the truth. Orange jumpsuits, lawn chairs, edits, etc. does it matter? Nick Berg is dead and dirty liberals are trying to blame the CIA when we are at war with terrorists. Where is the logic in blaming his murder on the CIA?

one this is ridiculus to say that the CIA is behind the death of Nick Berg. Also it is just plain dumb to say that the interrogations were conducted improperly because they were conducted by reservists. Reservists recieve the same military training that active duty military recieve. So they conduct interrogations in the same manner. Just because there are a select few who find it funny to abuse prisoners does not reflect on the rest of the military and how they run things. But back to Nick Berg, the CIA would not stage something like that and make obvious mistakes like the ones you are trying to point out. There have been many CIA cover ups that have been revealed in some manner but they all were good and usually took an inside source to expose the truth. Orange jumpsuits, lawn chairs, edits, etc. does it matter? Nick Berg is dead and dirty liberals are trying to blame the CIA when we are at war with terrorists. Where is the logic in blaming his murder on the CIA?